Derin, Can you do this:
source $FREESURFER_HOME/bin/tcl_setup then send me the output of: ldd `which tkmedit.bin` and ldd `which tksurfer.bin` I will be looking to see if the proper tcl/tk/tix/blt libs are being used (those in freesurfer/lib/tcltktixblt). Nick On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 11:15 -0500, Derin Cobia wrote: > Nick, > > Yes, our tcltktixblt directory was intact and set correctly. The reason I > thought it was a BLT lib was it came up missing when I ran fs_lib check. > At any rate, the DefaultDepth is already at 24 in our xorg.conf file and > the problem persists. Any other thoughts what might be occurring? Would > you like me to submit my output as well? > > Also, any thoughts from anyone with regard to question #2 (see below)? > Thanks. > > -Derin > > > On Oct 8, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Nick Schmansky wrote: > > Derin, > > To answer your first question, the solution to that particular problem > that you reference was not to install the BLT libs (as they are included > with freesurfer in the $FREESURFER_HOME/lib/tcltktixblt directory and > found by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the tksurfer script), but rather by > changing the 'DefaultDepth' from 16 to 24 in the 'Screen' Section in the > file /etc/X11/xorg.conf file. > > Nick > > Two questions: > > 1. We installed the latest version of 32-bit FS on several workstations > running CentOS 5.1 in our lab. However, once we ran the CentOS updates > (~280 of them through up2date), tkmedit now fails to open and tksurfer > exhibits behavior exactly as described in this message from the mail > archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg07570.html > Having attempted to troubleshoot it I discovered that a blt lib was > missing, but even with re-installation of this tksurfer continues to not > display correctly. I believe it's a tcl problem, but I don't understand > why performing incremental updates to CentOS would break FS. More > importantly, I'm not sure which of the updates does "the breaking" so I > can just avoid it. Any ideas? > > 2. We are in the process of training new research assistants in how to > use FS. Typically we have approached this in a more qualitative way by > working side-by-side with them to guide their edits and processing. I was > wondering if there is a quantitative way of comparing their work that you > (or others) have used when training "new recruits" in FS. Maybe something > like was done in the Han et al (2006) paper, such as compare their > thickness (or other) maps with someone we know does well with manual > interventions? In essence, we're trying to think of a rigorous way to > train new people in FS, thanks! > > -Derin > _______________________________________________ > Freesurfer mailing list > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer > > > > _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
